D&D 5E Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)

[GMforPowergamers]

What are you even on about?

I am talking about the default of the game. 4th edition's emphasis was on the players being heroes. Previous editions were more focused on the players being adventurers. Of course you can make the game into what ever you want but that's not what we are discussing here. Mechanics wise, 4th edition made you more powerful in the beginning because the game wanted you to be the hero and not the common joe who could become a hero one day.

more powerful adventurers yes at low level, they evened out the hp a bit (more at low level less at high level) and gave non spell casters equal options to spell casters (uped martial characters lowered spell casters) but non of that matter to what type of adventurer you are...

I really don't see a single example of 'you have to be heroes in 4e' anywhere.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What exactly does 4th edition have to do with this part again?

I was showing how three classes could be in the same group with the same enemy to defeat but each having different reasons as to why while only one's goal was to be a hero.

yes but you started it by saying that was possible before 4e as if 4e did something to stop it (it in no way effected this at all)

Before 4th edition, D&D basically left it in the hands of the players. You could have three different people in a group who all have the same goal but three different intentions. The paladin wants to liberate the village from the vile, evil, red dragon, while the rogue wants the crap load of gold the beast has accumulated, while the mage wants those rare tomes he heard the dragon was in possession of.


Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...m-issue-(In-my-opinion)/page119#ixzz2rW6AwUBW

In 4th edition, D&D basically left it in the hands of the players. You could have three different people in a group who all have the same goal but three different intentions.

 

[Hussar]

Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a for...

Well which one is it? Are PC's in 3rd edition too powerful or are they powered down?

Both actually. Compared to 2e pc's 3e characters are much weaker relative to monsters. As I said earlier it's very easy to make 1st level characters in 2e that can single handedly do over forty hp of damage in a single round. Considering that 2e monsters have far less hp than 3e, 2e pc's start off far higher in power than any other edition.

3e's problem is the very steep power curve for levels. It's pretty hard to scare a 7th level party when they are already superheroes.

Note, I totally agree that Forth is terrible for horror too. At least by the book. The healing rules and the aedu power scheme does not lend itself well to horror.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Both actually. Compared to 2e pc's 3e characters are much weaker relative to monsters. As I said earlier it's very easy to make 1st level characters in 2e that can single handedly do over forty hp of damage in a single round. Considering that 2e monsters have far less hp than 3e, 2e pc's start off far higher in power than any other edition.

3e's problem is the very steep power curve for levels. It's pretty hard to scare a 7th level party whor.

Can you show your math with some examples of how you are achieving this?

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Both actually. Compared to 2e pc's 3e characters are much weaker relative to monsters. As I said earlier it's very easy to make 1st level characters in 2e that can single handedly do over forty hp of damage in a single round. Considering that 2e monsters have far less hp than 3e, 2e pc's start off far higher in power than any other edition.

3e's problem is the very steep power curve for levels. It's pretty hard to scare a 7th level party when they are already superheroes.

Note, I totally agree that Forth is terrible for horror too. At least by the book. The healing rules and the aedu power scheme does not lend itself well to horror.

I'm still not understanding the problem with horror and 3rd edition. From what I remember, there were certain spells that worked differently or didn't work at all, certain actions would catch the attention of the dark powers, you could go insane, you could actually limit what classes you wanted in Ravenloft and the availability of items. I could scare the hell out of a party of 7th level characters. Remember, most undead from 3rd edition drained something or other and the biggest threat were incorporeal undead.

Also, it's about the atmosphere.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm still not understanding the problem with horror and 3rd edition. From what I remember, there were certain spells that worked differently or didn't work at all, certain actions would catch the attention of the dark powers, you could go insane, you could actually limit what classes you wanted in Ravenloft and the availability of items. I could scare the hell out of a party of 7th level characters. Remember, most undead from 3rd edition drained something or other and the biggest threat were incorporeal undead.

Also, it's about the atmosphere.

I ran Ravenloft using both systems for years, under several different campaigns and groups of players, and never had a problem with the horror and atmosphere aspect of play. I prefered 2E and found it easier to use for that, but that's just personal preference (i had players who prefered 3E for example).

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

I actually have the Ravenloft Campaign Guide by Sword and Sorcery and it works great.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I actually have the Ravenloft Campaign Guide by Sword and Sorcery and it works great.

I have all the sword and sorcery ravenloft books and think they are good. This is just a preference. The 2E system worked better for me running ravenloft, and i think i prefered the tsr material to the S&S material, but again that is just preference too. I know lots of people who like the S&S books better and the S&S core book has a lot of helpful improvements. I ran both, liked both, think horror is equally achievable in both. I just found 2E worked better for my style of running games and the way my brain tends to work. Don't get me wrong though, i like 3E.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I actually have the Ravenloft Campaign Guide by Sword and Sorcery and it works great.

The GM book for S&S ravenloft was probably my only real dissapointement in that line. For some reason it just didn't connect with me. At least in the actual advice section.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

I have all the sword and sorcery ravenloft books and think they are good. This is just a preference. The 2E system worked better for me running ravenloft, and i think i prefered the tsr material to the S&S material, but again that is just preference too. I know lots of people who like the S&S books better and the S&S core book has a lot of helpful improvements. I ran both, liked both, think horror is equally achievable in both. I just found 2E worked better for my style of running games and the way my brain tends to work. Don't get me wrong though, i like 3E.

Now no one can argue that 2nd edition had the best Ravenloft material. Boxsets like "Forlorn" were fantastic and books like "Domains of Dread" were classics.